Shh!

Maanav Varma

Humans are LOUD. We make a lot of noise. Social events like concerts, transportation methods like airplanes, and daily household items like vacuum cleaners all contribute to noise. When people regularly expose themselves to loud sounds, they are susceptible to health problems like elevated heart rates. This is defined as noise pollution. However, noise pollution does not just cause problems for humans. It also causes issues for other organisms. For this reason, we need to be more careful about the loud sounds we make because it not only affects ourselves but it also affects the environment around us.

Animals are having to change their behavior patterns to adapt to noise made by humans. Several species of birds are changing their flight patterns and mating techniques because of excessive human noise levels. Great Tits, or Parus Major, have to change their mating calls to be heard over human ruckus. Male Great Tits have to call at higher frequencies because they cannot be heard at lower frequencies. However, Female Great Tits find higher frequency calls unattractive, which then leads to less mating. Scrub Jays, birds found in Western United States, are also seeking quieter areas to avoid human-made noise and human contact. Scrub Jays are an important aspect of the Pinyon Pine Ecosystem. However, because of logging and industrial activity, the Jays are leaving the ecosystem, and the ecosystem is beginning to deteriorate.



Terrestrial animals are not the only ones being affected by noise caused by humans. Marine life is being disrupted as well. Dolphins use echolocation to know their surroundings. They do this by making high-frequency clicks, which then bounces off of their surroundings and lets the dolphins hear. With more and more oil drilling, ship traffic, and other industrial noises, dolphins are having a hard time using echolocation. The human activity is messing up the dolphins' ability to hear. Whales are also affected by human-made noise. Loud sonar blasts used by the Navy causes whales to get stranded on beaches. They then "bleed around the ears, brain and other tissues."



It's pretty sad in my opinion how our carelessness affects other organisms. Some ways we can reduce noise pollution is by turning off household items such as the TV, or by lowering the volume of music on our headphones. We can also plant trees. Trees naturally absorb noise. In fact, they reduce noise by up to 10 decibels. What are your thoughts on human carelessness towards the natural environment around us? Are there any other ways we can reduce noise intensity so that it does not affect the environment tremendously? How can we be more sensitive to the environment around us?

https://www.environmentalpollutioncenters.org/noise-pollution/
https://www.science.org.au/curious/earth-environment/noise-pollution-and-environment
https://www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/noise-pollution/
https://eschooltoday.com/pollution/noise-pollution/sources-of-noise-pollution.html
https://www.ppsthane.com/blog/how-to-reduce-noise-pollution

The Environmental Impact of Cosmetic Products

Amaya Shenoy

Personally, I’m a huge fan of the usage of cosmetic products, whether it be skincare products or shampoo. While I’m searching for my products, I always tend to lean towards brands that market their products as being “natural” as a way to make myself feel like I’m making a healthy choice by not using so many chemicals. However, despite a company’s claims that their products are eco-friendly, the terms that cosmetic companies use to label their products are relatively unregulated, leading their consumers to be misinformed as to how sustainable the products they’re buying really are.

When beauty companies claim that their products are “natural” in reality, this likely means that they have a few natural ingredients in their products. Some of these products include chemicals for the purpose of preservation or to help the product lather. However, once these chemical-ridden products are washed off, they’re sent into the drain where they have to potential of contaminating lakes and streams, which can damage the flora and fauna of the ecosystem. 

In addition, some products have plastic microbeads in them marketed towards “exfoliation.” While the microbeads in beauty products could help with exfoliating the skin, they take a long time to degrade. Once these microbeads end up in bodies of water, organisms are at a risk of consuming them, which could hurt them. Luckily, a few countries have banned the inclusion of plastic microbeads in beauty products, which helps decrease the amount of plastic disposed of in bodies of water and landfills.

The packaging of cosmetic products is also a cause of concern. Cosmetic product bottles must be designed in a way that would prevent the contents of the bottle from degrading the packaging. This means that the materials used in the packaging are not easily degradable or recyclable after use, which contributes to the amount of waste in landfills.

Although the cosmetic industry can be environmentally taxing, there are ways to be more environmentally efficient while picking ou products. For one, you can do more research about the products that we buy and the ingredients that are used in the products. Not only can you avoid products that contain harmful chemicals and microbeads, but you can also make sure that you are buying products that are suited for yourself, which would prevent you from throwing away as many products. You can also use products that use less packaging which would lead to less waste in landfills.

 

Although the cosmetic industry can be environmentally taxing, there are ways to be more environmentally efficient while picking ou products. For one, you can do more research about the products that we buy and the ingredients that are used in the products. Not only can you avoid products that contain harmful chemicals and microbeads, but you can also make sure that you are buying products that are suited for yourself, which would prevent you from throwing away as many products. You can also use products that use less packaging which would lead to less waste in landfills.

Sources:

https://www.hps-pigging.com/sustainability-challenges-facing-the-cosmetics-and-personal-care-industry/

https://www.florandcesta.com/flor-and-cesta/earth-day-2018-the-environmental-impact-of-the-cosmetics-industry

https://www.adorncosmetics.com.au/blog/post/environmental-impact/

https://intothegloss.com/2015/12/microbeads-in-beauty-products/

https://www.thestar.com/life/homes/2012/03/15/what_to_do_with_leftover_lotions.html

Butt really? Cigarettes are terrible for the environment.

During the quarantine my back patio with a great view of the woods kept the insanity of not being able to leave my house at bay. Unfortunately, when I'm sitting outside listening to birds chirp and staring at some leaves, I often catch a whiff of bitter smoke. I look around and sure enough it's one of my neighbors smoking. Since I have truly brilliant luck, nearly every single one of my neighbors in apartments next to mine smoke. This fact had been apparent since the time I found a cigarette butt the guy upstairs had dropped on our poor cactus. I was aware of the horrifying effects of smoking on the human body (Tobacco use, especially cigarette smoking, is the most preventable cause of death in the United States) but as I stared at the cigarette butt in my cactus I wondered how bad smoking is for the environment. Spoiler: it's bad, really bad. 

Cigarette butts are the world’s most littered plastic item. Let that horrifying fact sink in...like the nicotine, heavy metals, and many other chemicals sink into the surrounding environment after these butts are casually discarded. For starters, smoking causes air pollution by releasing toxic air pollutants into the atmosphere. The cigarette butts also litter the environment and the toxic chemicals in the remains seep into soils and waterways therefore causing soil and water pollution respectively. A recent study found that cigarette butts inhibit plant growth. They also routinely get into waterways, and eventually oceans. Animals and plants that come into contact or absorb the toxic substances from the cigarette residues are affected. What makes these consequences worse is the sheer number of smokers and therefore cigarette butts discarded. Smokers around the world buy roughly 6.5 trillion cigarettes each year. That’s 18 billion every day. While most of a cigarette’s innards and paper wrapping disintegrate when smoked, not everything gets burned. Trillions of cigarette filters—also known as butts or ends—are left over, only an estimated third of which make it into the trash. E-cigarettes are just as bad if not worse, containing more plastic and the same toxic chemicals.

E-cigs are mostly single use plastic and contain toxic heavy metals

While the effects of smoking and the consequent littering of cigarettes are bad enough on their own, the  utter dumpster fire that is the tobacco industry adds to the horrible environmental effect. 

Frequently, tobacco farmers clear the forest by burning it; often, the land is abandoned, contributing in many cases to desertification. Not only does this slash-and-burn agriculture generate vast amounts of pollutants, much of this land is cleared of carbon dioxide-absorbing forest cover. As a result, tobacco cultivation is exacerbating greenhouse gas levels.Tobacco is one of the most chemically-intensive crops. Most farmers heavily use inorganic chemical fertilizers to promote growth and herbicides to mitigate competing weeds. Because tobacco is typically grown as a monocrop, it is also particularly vulnerable to pests and most farmers heavily use pesticides. Furthermore, in most tobacco producing countries (primarily developing nations such as India, Brazil and China), there is evidence that farmers continue to use chemicals that are restricted or banned in most higher-HDI regions, such as the European Union. The tobacco product manufacturing process generates vast amounts of waste. The last rigorous estimate, from 1995, suggested that the industry produces more than 2.5 million tonnes of manufacturing waste, much of which contains nicotine and other dangerous chemicals. As global tobacco production is currently greater than in 1995, this negative impact can only be higher still today.

This graphic summarises the terrible effect of cigarettes and the larger tobacco industry on the environment pretty well.

To alleviate the horrifying environmental impact of tobacco products the following solutions have been proposed. First, there are steps you can take on an individual level: don't smoke and spread awareness on the environmental degradation that cigarettes can cause. Assist in cleanup efforts to help remove cigarette butts and prevent them from leaching chemicals into the ground. However these practices can only do so much, on a legislative level one solution would be to ban cigarette filters  i.e the cigarette butts or introduce biodegradable cigarette filters. Unfortunately, consumers don't want to buy cigarettes without filters causing companies to hesitate on alternatives to the harmful plastic filters. A way to tackle e-cig waste would be a deposit system i.e you exchange your old cartridges for new ones which juul is considering.

What are some more ways we could reduce the impact of smoking and cigarettes? Do you know someone/someone who smokes? Do you think public awareness of the environmental effects of tobacco will reduce smoking?  Are companies responsible for introducing environmentally sustainable disposal programs?

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2019/08/cigarettes-story-of-plastic/

https://tobaccoatlas.org/topic/environment/

https://www.conserve-energy-future.com/serious-effects-cigarette-smoking-environment-and-human-health.php

https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2019-07/aru-cbh071919.php

https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&url=https%3A%2F%2Ftruthinitiative.org%2Fresearch-resources%2Fharmful-effects-tobacco%2Ftobacco-and-environment&psig=AOvVaw0SYDGlHK_sXSfzr1ZP-wlT&ust=1588192146620000&source=images&cd=vfe&ved=0CAMQjB1qFwoTCIit8P36i-kCFQAAAAAdAAAAABAD

https://www.worldlistmania.com/largest-tobacco-producing-countries-in-the-world/

http://www.fao.org/3/y4956e/y4956e08.html

Losing Our Ability to Breathe

By: Emma Shearer

     Have you ever been in a small room or under a blanket, and suddenly you found it difficult to breathe? By the end of the century, this could become an everyday reality, due to the rising carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere. Scarily enough, the rise in atmospheric CO2 levels can effect ones ability to think clearly. “By the end of the century, people could be exposed to indoor CO2 levels up to 1400 parts per million—more than three times today’s outdoor levels, and well beyond what humans have ever experienced” (Science Daily).

Currently, the atmospheric CO2 levels are 407.4 parts per million (NOAA). “ Carbon dioxide levels today are higher than at any point in at least the past 800,000 years” (NOAA). I think most of us would agree that this isn’t surprising. Talks of climate change swarm the media constantly as headlines scream that “Earth Only Has 50 Years Left”. While natural climate change is normal, we are heading down a path that is irreversible. “In fact, the last time the atmospheric CO2 amounts were this high was more than 3 million years ago, when temperature was2°–3°C (3.6°–5.4°F) higher than during the pre-industrial era, and sea level was 15-25 meters (50-80 feet) higher than today.

What’s scary about this whole situation is that the rising CO2 levels can affect more than just the environment. “Put simply, when we breathe air with high CO2 levels, the CO2 levels in our blood rise, reducing the amount of oxygen that reaches our brains. Studies show that this can increase sleepiness and anxiety, and impair cognitive function” (Science Daily). Another interesting thing that has come to light is that due to the advancement of building, there is less exchange between outdoor oxygen and indoor CO2, which is causing the same effect that the rise in atmospheric CO2 does (World Economic Form). 

Scientists are sort of stuck on solutions to this problem. Because it’s been going on for decades, they have researched for an answer, without much luck. What are possible solutions to the rise of CO2 levels? Do you think the levels will rise enough to affect us in our lifetimes? What are some ideas to decrease the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. 

Sources: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/04/200421090556.htm

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/12/increased-levels-of-carbon-dioxide-could-reduce-brainpower-study-finds/

Are Electric Cars Sustainable?

Shaunak Sathe

Since Elon Musk introduced Tesla, the company has been growing steadily in the market for electric cars. With the benefits of a luxury ride, high acceleration, and self-driving features, Tesla also claims to be a sustainable choice for the environment by slowing global warming. However, skeptics have pointed out that an electric car is not as environmentally friendly as it claims, as the electricity that it uses comes from mostly fossil fuels. In the United States, almost 85% of electricity is generated through non-renewable sources, including coal, natural gas, and oil. This does seem slightly better the alternative. Rather than deriving 100% of its power through fossil fuels, like the common gas-powered car, Tesla uses around 85%.

Another piece of the puzzle is creating a demand of electric cars in developing countries, which does not exist in the present. This cannot happen unless these cars become affordable for the everyday person. Today, in the United States, the cheapest Tesla costs about $40,000. Meanwhile, the average world family income in US Dollars is about $9700. Right now, it is obvious that electric cars are not affordable to the average person. The challenge in the future is making the vehicle from cheaper parts without compromising its sustainability, so that it can be marketed to the majority of the population. The citizens of developing countries are often too busy working to put food on the table, rather than buying expensive electric cars for sustainability.

In most locations, electric cars statistically produce less of a carbon footprint than gas cars. However, even this statistic has its issues, as the carbon emission can vary greatly by location. For example, in Victoria, Australia, Tesla cars were recorded to produce almost two times the carbon emissions as Toyota gas-powered vehicles. This is largely due to the manufacturing process, were rare parts must be shipped from across the world. After the life of these electric cars has ended, we must also take into account the disposing of the lithium ion batteries and other potentially dangerous materials that are used to power the electric car. These chemicals can eventually enter the water system, and wreak havoc on life from all trophic levels.

Nevertheless, this problem is very urgent, as the difference between the number of drivers and the number of vehicles increases every year. Transportation is extremely important in modern society, and a solution must be found to make cars more sustainable for the environment. Motor vehicles account for a large portion of the carbon emissions and greenhouse gas release. Normal gas vehicles emit large amounts of nitrous oxide and carbon dioxide. While electric cars are part of the solution, they are far from perfect. As technology innovates, the efficiency is manufacturing will improve, and electric cars become increasingly popular. Furthermore, countries must switch to renewable sources of electricity (hydroelectric, wind, solar) in order for electric cars to have the least environmental impact. In the end, these companies care more about making a profit, than they do about the environment. Unfortunately, this means that electric cars can never be a perfect solution to this issue, though it can be a start.

Questions:

Do you think electric cars are a sustainable alternative to gas powered cars? Do you believe electric cars will become more sustainable, cheaper, and popular in the future? Do you believe it is beneficial to invest in electric cars, or make a greater impact by spending money elsewhere?

Sources:
https://www.epa.gov/energy/about-us-electricity-system-and-its-impact-environment
https://theconversation.com/teslas-in-victoria-arent-greener-than-diesels-40834
https://marketrealist.com/2019/04/is-tesla-really-doing-more-harm-than-good-to-the-environment/
https://grist.org/article/u-s-car-fleet-shrinks-by-four-million-in-2009/
https://www.tesla.com/cybertruck

A New Path Forward

by Jess Rutti

Since the emergence of fossil fuels and industrial technology in the early 20th century, humanity has wrought destruction through an onslaught of deforestation, air and water contamination, and carbon pollution. As time elapses, effects of this crisis have become more apparent: oceans are more acidic, drought and disease simultaneously impact agriculture and water quality, rising sea levels threaten coastal communities, and the still-rising temperature promises further ruin. The severity of this climate emergency requires a timely and economically conscious response in order to eliminate greenhouse gas emissions and the irreversible destruction of ecosystems.  

   

In late 2018, The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released a report explaining that “Human activities are estimated to have caused approximately 1.0°C of global warming above pre-industrial levels, with a likely range of 0.8°C to 1.2°C. Global warming is likely to reach 1.5°C between 2030 and 2052 if it continues to increase at the current rate” (IPCC). Since humans are the dominant cause contributing to the changing climate and the results thereof, it is humanity’s responsibility to take action in order to manage their own disastrous actions. Following the initial report’s release, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a United States Representative, came together with many other congressional members to draft the starting point of a plan to do exactly that. The Green New Deal is an enormous proposal that aims to invest in clean-energy jobs and infrastructure, reshape the energy sector, transform the economy, and reduce carbon emissions to net-zero. 

 

Though this first issuing of the Green New Deal was merely the beginning points of an eventual plan of action, it is all-inclusive when it comes to its ambition. The proposal recognizes that “it is the duty of the Federal Government to create a Green New Deal . . . to secure for all people of the United States for generations to come— clean air and water; climate and community resiliency; healthy food; access to nature; and a sustainable environment” (Ocasio-Cortez). In addition, the plan outlines goals to cut carbon emissions to zero by 2035. The use of fossil fuels—non-renewable resources—by humans is the single leading cause contributing to the climate crisis, and consequently, a transition to total renewable energy sources is the single best solution.  

  

Expanding on the ideas of congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez, Bernie Sanders, a former presidential hopeful, published a comprehensive Green New Deal plan that details specifics of policies and how they will be achieved. Sanders’ plan makes sure to consider the environment and economy together, asserting that the United States will transition to 100% renewable energy by 2030 and create 20 million jobs. By providing a federal jobs guarantee, Sanders ensures that the prosperous future achieved by saving the planet would not only apply to the rich and powerful, but also to the average working class family. The Green New Deal is meant to both save Earth’s biosphere and to be a catalyst for economic uplift, similar to the original New Deal signed by Franklin Delano Roosevelt. In combination, these proposed policies will rescue millions of Americans from poverty while allowing them to enjoy the benefits of a healthy planet. Most importantly, Sanders’ Green New Deal does not only focus on what work needs to be done in the United States, but it also encourages sustainability abroad through an outline of strict environmental guidelines that the U.S. will require from its allies and trading partners in the future.  

 

The projected cost of employing the policies of Sanders’ Green New Deal plan would total about $16.3 trillion. It is not uncommon for naysayers to object to the practicality of this investment, but they fail to realize the cost of the alternative. A paper published by Nature Climate Change in early 2019 estimated that “largely unchecked [climate change] would cost about $520 billion dollars across [various] sectors every year by 2090” (Levitan), thus resulting in over $36 trillion dollars in comparison to the bargain that is the Green New Deal. Furthermore, the entirety of the investment highlighted within the deal will be taken from purely federal money “including $6.4 trillion in revenue from selling energy via power marketing authorities, $2.3 trillion from income taxes from the new jobs created under the plan, and $1.2 trillion from reducing military expenses related to protecting oil shipping routes” (Irfan and Golshan). Combining these and more contributions, the plan will pay for itself over 15 years. 

What should be an issue to everyone—conserving planet Earth— has become a partisan issue. Distrust of scientific fact, obfuscation from fossil fuel industries, corrupt elected officials, and insatiable consumers all contribute to a lack of forward progress. Gaining support for a perceived “far-left” Green New Deal to pass within congress and be signed into law will be challenging, but doing so is absolutely necessary. A global climate crisis is not a distant dystopian fear, it is happening now, severely and fast approaching. To combat it successfully, solutions must also be meaningful and swift. As everyone and everything on Earth faces this crisis of magnificent proportion, politicians can no longer sit idly by as the effects brought about by this worsen and introduce greater destruction. In order to achieve net-zero carbon emissions while strengthening the economy and avoiding potential humanitarian catastrophe, a bold initiative must be undertaken with the United States of America leading the way. Much like the New Deal, which lifted millions out of depression and into greater social and economic prosperity, the Green New Deal serves to insure a prosperous planet and way of life for future generations. 

 

So, does the Green New Deal sound like a real possibility to combat climate change and further stimulate the economy? If not, what are better ways you know of that could achieve the many undertakings that are required to save our planet? Why do you think there has been so much controversy surrounding the Green New Deal? How can we push for politicians to work across the aisle in order to model a plan that appeals to all Americans?  

Sources: 

Image 1 Source: Medium.com 

Image 2 Source: Sciblogs.co.nz 

Image 3 Source: Nytimes.com 

Image 4 Source: Oilprice.com 

Image 5 Source: Organicconsumers.org 

Image 6 Source: Newsweek.com  

Image 7 Source: Progresoweekly.us 

Direct Quotation from IPCC: "Global Warming of 1.5 ºC" 

Direct Quotation: Alexandria Ocasio Cortez’s Green New Deal 

Direct Quotation: Dave Levitan on Newrepublic.com 

Direct Quotation: Umair Irfan and Tara Golshanon Vox.com 

IPCC: "Choices made now are critical for the future of our ocean and cryosphere" 

Bernie Sanders’ Green New Deal Plan